AGIS has made it a 5-NAP requirement - and the AADS and PacBell NAPs are not the easiest to get into on 1-day notice.
What I heard them say was that you had to peer with them in every NAP where they were present...implying that if they go into a sixth NAP, their peering requirement increases. Mark Borchers InfiNet Network Engineering NOC: (757) 624-2295 ext. 3007
AGIS has made it a 5-NAP requirement - and the AADS and PacBell NAPs are not the easiest to get into on 1-day notice.
What I heard them say was that you had to peer with them in every NAP where they were present...implying that if they go into a sixth NAP, their peering requirement increases.
Mark Borchers
What I heard Peter say was something like "We've found that unless you are present at all of these NAPs reachability isn't good enough to you". Not that he precluded adding other XPs as requirements - but I didn't hear him say "you must be at every public XP that we're at". Avi
So far from what I have gathered, everyone is afraid of being used as a transit point. There is a very simple solution available which I can't figure out why people are not using. Both peers charge each other for the bits being peered. So now if one peer is being used as a transit point, then they get compensated for it. Eg AAA BBB 15443621 bits -> 15443621 bits 20000000 bits <- 20000000 bits Difference 4556379 bits additional sent from BBB to AAA Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB Simple!!!! Now with this kind of peering arrangement, no one has to be worried about being used as a transit point -- infact they will want to be used as a transit point. This will also allow medium sized ISPs to peer with each-other. So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used anywhere??? Pritish
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Pritish Shah wrote:
So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used anywhere???
Because direction of traffic flow is meaningless as an indicator of direction of value flow, if you will. I send 5MB across Sprint's network. Am I responsible for paying for that traffic, or is Sprint? Think carefully before you answer, or better yet, check what the NANOG archives have to say on the topic. __ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Pritish Shah wrote:
So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used anywhere???
Because direction of traffic flow is meaningless as an indicator of direction of value flow, if you will.
I send 5MB across Sprint's network. Am I responsible for paying for that traffic, or is Sprint? Think carefully before you answer, or better yet, check what the NANOG archives have to say on the topic.
Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering
You can make an argument either way. "I'm only sending you that 5mb/sec of data because your educational, ISP, and business customers are asking me for it with Netscape [or whatever]." "I'm only receiving that 5mb/sec of data because your corporate and ISP customers have web servers - and they pay you to make their data available to the world." Avi
Exactly. Let's I'll be ISP having peering to the Sprint. And playboy.com will be connected to Sprint. My customer requested the image from WWW.PLAYBOY.COM. WWW.PLAYBOY.COM send this via Sprint -> Relcom. My customer is person who initiated this request. He have paid me. Sprint is network have sent this for me. Q. Who have to pay? Those who _sent_ bits? It's in opposition to INTERNET. Those who initiated request? If we'll choose second case (I'll pay for bits received from the Sprint) anybody in Sprint may send me any amount of bits withouth my request - and I can't pay for it. There is great difference with PTT telephone network, or ATM - this cases I'll initiate connection to www.playboy.com and that's why I'll pay for it. But IP is connectionless network.
So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used anywhere???
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Pritish Shah wrote:
Applying lets say 1 cent per 100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB
So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used anywhere???
The bookkeeping costs $2000 per month for *BOTH* providers to monitor this, collect data, collect bills, etc.... Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (6)
-
alex＠relcom.eu.net -
Avi Freedman -
Mark Borchers -
Michael Dillon -
Pritish Shah -
Todd Graham Lewis